To make any moral statement and to have that opinion be respected and worthwhile, we have to evaluate all circumstances surrounding the event that led to the discoing or action in question. We term this "Ideal Moral Judgement," because it is all three. It is not a measurable or calculable figure, it is an ideal, and in the respects I will mention, there is no doubt of the moral issues that are raised here, and the conclusion we come up with is not indoctrinated or flawless, it is a judgment based on research, and thought as merely compared to our own standards of what is right and wrong.
To make such bold statements, we first must consider the problem with impartiality. To make any moral judgment on a person or idea, we must put prejudices, priorities, and self-interest aside. For example, if I were sitting on a jury trying to decide the guilt or innocence of someone, I could not decide their guilt or innocence based on the fact that the person is black, or a woman, or homosexual, or Hispanic, or any of the other constant prejudices that we see everyday. Partiality happens. Every person I have met in my life has had preferences. There is also nothing wrong with partiality either; it is impartiality that's a problem. Where partiality is acceptable, impartiality on the same subjects can be just the opposite. Impartiality clouds judgment, and impartiality is what prevents us from achieving the goal of reaching an ideal moral judgment. If impartiality is allowed to cloud our judgment then another risk is made. Sometimes we are faced with descions, especially in the field of ethics that are final. Many of our debates focus around ideas like Euthanasia and Capital Punishment, and these things are final. Should we send someone to die or decide that they can be killed based on the fact that we don't like members of a group they belong to, there are serious questions of guilt, and more ultimately, responsibility.